Apparently, the government of Ontario is reconsidering its decision to build more nuclear power plants, due to concerns about cost overruns and the status of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd (AECL). The province was previously planning to spend $26 billion over the next few decades, expanding and refurbishing nuclear reactors.
Apparently, the Ontario government has rejected foreign bids from France’s AREVA and the American Westinghouse corporation, but doesn’t have sufficient confidence in AECL to commit for sure at this stage. They want guarantees from the federal government, in order to proceed.
I am torn on the question of whether to support nuclear power. It is certainly more appealing than additional coal power, when all the risks of each are taken into account. That being said, nuclear has always benefitted from large direct and indirect subsidies. It isn’t clear whether that public money would be better spent on alternatives, such as renewable generation, an improved electrical grid, energy storage, or demand management. I also have serious doubts about the competence of AECL, as well as our government’s effectiveness in regulating and managing it. It would have been nice for a foreign corporation with domestic support from its own government and taxpayers had taken on some of the risk associated with the new projects, rather than leaving it all in Canadian hands.
As an aside, Canadian nuclear regulators have discovered that Canada’s existing CANDU reactors are more dangerous than previously appreciated. In the event of a coolant leak, the chain reaction inside them actually speeds up, instead of slowing down. This could lead to dangerous overheating if a serious leak isn’t followed by a rapid shutdown.
Ontario drops plans for 2 new nuclear reactors
Last Updated: Monday, June 29, 2009 | 2:42 PM ET
CBC News
Citing ballooning costs and its responsibility to the taxpayers of the province, the Ontario government says it is indefinitely mothballing plans to build two new nuclear reactors at the Darlington power station.
“We still believe that in our energy supply mix to have new nuclear units to replace some of our aging fleet is very prudent for Ontario. But we will not purchase any such units at any cost. The cost must be right for the people of Ontario,” said Energy Minister George Smitherman on Monday morning.
—
Ontario Suspends Nuclear Procurement
June 29, 2009 11:20 AM
Queen’s Park — The Government of Ontario today announced that it has suspended the competitive RFP to procure two replacement nuclear reactors planned for the Darlington site. Deputy Premier and Minister of Energy and Infrastructure George Smitherman indicated that the government remains committed to the modernization of Ontario’s nuclear fleet.
“Emission-free nuclear power remains a crucial aspect of Ontario’s supply mix,” Smitherman said. “Unfortunately, the competitive bidding process has not provided Ontario with a suitable option at this time,” he added.
—
Jun 29, 2009
Pembina Reacts: Nuclear Procurement Delay Must Give Green Energy Act Time to Produce Results
Media Contact: Cherise Burda
“The Pembina Institute applauds the Ontario government’s decision today to suspend the procurement of two new nuclear plants at Darlington. However, the delay should be long enough to give time and space for the Green Energy Act to produce results,” says Cherise Burda, the Pembina Institute’s Ontario Policy Director.
“Today’s delay which was made on the basis of pricing, should not be resolved through more federal subsidies by lowering AECL’s bid. More government bail-outs are not the answer. Green energy has proven that it is cost effective and companies can hold their own without massive subsidies. Let’s put our investment in a green energy future and get green energy jobs into action instead.”
In the event of a coolant leak, the chain reaction inside them actually speeds up, instead of slowing down. This could lead to dangerous overheating if a serious leak isn’t followed by a rapid shutdown.
I thought the CANDU design was supposed to be unusually safe, compared with light water reactors.
I had also heard that, though this recent information calls it into question somewhat.
Costs kill Ontario’s new nukes
Posted 10:59 AM on 29 Jun 2009
by John McGrath
It all started so well. Almost exactly three years ago, Ontario’s government announced the construction of two new nuclear reactors to replace ageing parts of our current power supply. Despite the drawbacks of being announced in the middle of summer vacation season and happening in Ontario, it nonetheless made news around the world. This was probably the furthest that any proposal for nuclear building had gotten in the 21st century, and it was kind of a big deal: The Washington Post said it “put Canada at the leading edge of what the nuclear industry calls a ‘renaissance’ of support for nuclear power.”
The usual suspects touted Ontario’s nuclear ambitions as a sign that nuclear power was hip and cool again. See—even the Canadians are doing it!
Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Earlier in the spring, there were persistent rumours that, after getting bids from the major nuclear players, Energy and Infrastructure Minister George Smitherman was suffering from “sticker shock”. Throw in a major global recession, and a provincial government that his already mired in a scandal for wasting taxpayer’s money by the millions, and it was starting to look bleak for the our shiny new reactors. It certainly didn’t help that the Federal government decided to throw a monkey wrench into things.
Nuclear dawn delayed in Finland
By Rob Broomby
BBC World Service, Olkiluoto, Finland
When it is finished, Finland’s Olkiluoto 3 (OL3) nuclear reactor will be the biggest the world has ever seen, the excavation site alone is the size of 55 football fields.
It was to have been a pilot project for bigger, better, cleaner, Generation III reactors, which would lead the charge back to nuclear power in a continent which had gone cold on atomic energy after the accidents at Chernobyl and Thee Mile Island.
But hopes of an early nuclear dawn on the Baltic coast are fading – the May start up date came and went and the OL3 is now not expected to begin pumping out electricity until 2012 – three years later than planned and about $2.4bn dollars (1.7bn euros) over budget.
Cost of new nuclear in Ontario? Anywhere from $7,400 to $10,800 per kilowatt, depending on your appetite for risk
July 14th, 2009
I have a story in today’s Toronto Star that pegs the price of two 1,200 megawatt ACR 1000 reactors from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. at $26 billion, including all balance of plant costs. That would put the cost at $10,800 (Canadian) per kilowatt, far beyond previous projections. Really far. The story was based on information supplied by sources close to the bidding, including one directly involved on a bidding team. It also found that the Areva bid — involving two 1,600 EPR reactors — came in at $23.6 billion, or roughly $7,400 per kilowatt. It was deemed non-compliant, however, likely because Areva wouldn’t guarantee the price (which explains the lower price, maybe?)
Bruce Power pulls plug on two planned nuclear stations
Company says Nanticoke, Port Elgin-area stations are no longer needed because of plunging electricity demand in Ontario
MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT
From Friday’s Globe and Mail Last updated on Thursday, Jul. 23, 2009 10:45PM EDT
Bruce Power has pulled the plug on an ambitious plan to construct two new nuclear power stations in Ontario.
The company says the stations, which it had hoped to build at Nanticoke on Lake Erie and at its existing nuclear complex near Port Elgin on Lake Huron, are not needed because of plunging electricity demand in the province.
The cancellations follow a decision late last month by the Ontario government to shelve a plan to build a new nuclear plant. The province cited the high cost of constructing the station as part of the reason for its decision.
Nuclear summer
By Susan Riley, The Ottawa Citizen
July 31, 2009
The much-heralded nuclear “renaissance” appears to have stalled this summer, at least temporarily — not because of unsettled questions over the disposal of radioactive waste, or fear of nuclear accidents, but because the costs of building new reactors is proving prohibitive.
That, at least, was Premier Dalton McGuinty’s explanation for his government’s recent decision not to proceed with two new reactors for Ontario’s Darlington facility. They were expected to cost $6 billion; the final tally from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the winning bidder, was rumoured to be closer to $26 billion.
Shortly after, Bruce Power, the private company that operates two nuclear facilities for the McGuinty government, announced that it was pulling the plug on new installations at Nanticoke on Lake Erie and Port Elgin on Lake Huron. It has decided to refurbish existing reactors rather than buy new ones.
Again, the concern was economic. Incredibly — given the brownouts of recent memory and apocalyptic talk of future energy shortages — Ontario is enjoying an electricity surplus. The recession, and cool weather this summer, have diminished demand and new gas-fired stations and wind farms have increased supply — but the trend predates this year.
Ontario shuts 4 coal-fired units
Sep 03, 2009 11:22 AM
Ontario is shutting down four coal units, two at Nanticoke and two at Lambton Generating Station, by 2010 in a move the World Wildlife Fund says will make the province a leader in fighting climate change.
Ontario promises to eliminate coal-fired generation by the end of 2014. Along with the closure of the Lakeview Generating Station in 2005, the province’s coal capacity will be reduced by 40 per cent.
Coal plants will close as Ontario brings other energy producing sources such as wind power, modern gas fired units and refurbished nuclear units online, Deputy Premier George Smitherman told reporters this morning.
“We are determined to eliminate coal fired generation from our energy supply mix,” Smitherman said at the Ontario Power Generation offices on University Ave.
OPG ready to go with Darlington refurbishment
After six years of planning and preparations Ontario Power Generation (OPG) says it is “ready to execute” refurbishment of the Darlington nuclear power plant and remains within the CAD 12.8 billion ($9 billion) estimate for the project, which is to start next month.
Ontario outlines long-term energy plans
The government of Ontario has reconfirmed its support for the Canadian province’s nuclear sector in its long-term energy roadmap. The plan focuses on energy affordability, innovation and customer choice in the province, which already generates over 90% of its electricity without producing greenhouse gases.
…
The new LTEP forecasts that electricity demand will be relatively steady over the planning period. It includes initiatives to maximise the use of Ontario’s existing energy assets, only securing new capacity when it is needed. Ontario’s electricity generation was 90% free of greenhouse gas emissions in 2016.
It recognises the refurbishment of existing nuclear power plants as the most cost-effective option for meeting the province’s baseload generation needs. Plans were laid out in the 2013 LTEP to refurbish a total of 10 nuclear units between 2016 and 2033 – four units at Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG) Darlington plant and six units at Bruce Power’s Bruce plant. Together, the two plants provide around half of the province’s electricity needs.
The plan also recognises the need to continue operating OPG’s Pickering nuclear power plant until 2024 to provide baseload electricity during the Darlington and initial Bruce refurbishments. The continued operation of Pickering would reduce the use of natural gas to generate electricity, saving up to CAD 600 million ($467 million) for electricity consumers and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least eight million tonnes, the plan notes.
OPG said the LTEP’s recognition of its progress on the Darlington refurbishment and the value of the continued operation of Pickering was “good news” for the company and its host communities.